Having watched the Redskins-Cowboys game last night, this story caught my eye. I previously wrote a Washington Post column on the controversy over the Redskins name. In the column, I mentioned that a large number of both Native Americans and non-Native Americans do not view the team name to be offensive and explored the issue of of who should decided such questions. A story in the Washington Post discusses a vocal opposition to changing the name “Redskins” in Red Mesa, Arizona. It is the other “Redskins” team from Red Mesa High School — a school composed of largely of Navajos.
As mentioned earlier, recent polls show that almost three out of four people polled still believe that the Redskins should keep its name and do not view the name as racist. Another poll shows that almost 60 percent of NFL players believe that the team should keep its name. A 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans said the name didn’t bother them.
The Navajos do not view the name as a racial slur but a point of pride — even having a spear-carrying brave lead the team on to the field to cheers of “Fear the Spear” and “Redskin Nation.”
The Post reports that “[t]here were 62 high schools in 22 states using the Redskins moniker last year.”
The story is interesting because the standard used by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board made it irrelevant whether the vast majority of Native Americans felt the same way as the Navajos in Red Mesa. The board followed an amazingly ambiguous standard that allows the denial of a trademark if it “may disparage” a “substantial composite” of a group at the time the trademark is registered. Thus, even if true, it would not matter if 90 percent of Native Americans do not oppose the use of the name or whether society as a whole does not view the name as offensive. Instead, the board focused on a 1993 resolution adopted by the National Congress of American Indians denouncing the name. The board simply extrapolated that, since the National Congress represented about 30 percent of Native Americans, one out of every three Native Americans found it offensive. “Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite,” the board wrote.
I frankly an agnostic on the name (until someone says that names like “the Bears” are offensive). I can see why some people find it offensive while I understand the pull of tradition in the use of the name. However, I do not believe that this is an appropriate matter to be resolved by a tiny obscure office like the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Whether the Redskins keep their name should be left to the owner, the fans, and ultimately the market.
In the meantime, the Redskins of Red Mesa insist that they will keep the name and their mascot.
Source: Washington Post
Ex Giant QB, Phil Simms, refuses to say “Redskins” in telecasts. What a panderer. He must be hitting on Rooney Mara.
Sooo, if the name of the team was changed, would there be any less drunk Indians on the reservation??? Any less gasoline huffing Indians??? Would there be any more jobs for Indians??? Would any Indian become more educated??? Because if there is no benefit that would accrue to the Indians, then what is the point???
In fact, there would be a negative impact. All the white folks who spend their time looking for something to be outraged about, would have to find something new to bitch about.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hey if it’s enough to get you an affirmative action professor slot and gets you elected Senator then surely it is enough to let you voice an opinion. Just sayn’
I wish people would stop citing that “there are native Americans who are okay with it” study, because it was a very liberal use of the term. A whole lot of the people who did it were the, legally accepted, 1/16th NA. Those people don’t pass for Native Americans so they would never have to deal with being called a derogatory name like “Redskin”.
@nick, absolutely.
There are two issues: is the name offensive, and should it be changed by the decree of “a tiny obscure office like the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.”
If it became clear that the name was hurting ticket sales or merchandise sales or tv ratings, it would be changed, either by the team or the league. If the owner became persuaded that the name was wrong, it would be changed. That’s how things work in a free society. Charles Krauthammer’s excellent column is a recommendation to Dan Snyder, not the TT&AB.
I’ll add that some of the lyrics to “Hail to the Redskins” were cleaned up back in the early ’60s, by the team itself. I don’t know what gov’t pressure may have been involved, but certainly it wasn’t done through trademark law.
Foon, Pollin CHOSE to change the name. “There is NO freedom w/o choice.”
Abe Pollin had no problem changing from the offensive Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards, and that was less offensive than the Redskins.
They won’t change the name. The controversy is putting more $$$ in their pockets.
Bailers, You summed it up perfectly. When Obama is out of office maybe he can form that Dept. of Non Offensive Behavior. Because, w/ all of the crisis he is managing, mismanaging and creating, he seems to have this issue near the top of the list.
Funny stuff, Paul. Bankster: a member of the banking industry seen as profiteering or dishonest. Not all bankers are banksters.
You would think most Americans would want to have the football team name that represents their nation’s capital to be less racially charged. But then again…..
Lloyd – I will trade them for the Arizona Cardinals, straight up.
And there are hundreds of teams which respectfully use Native American (oh, wait, PC is Indigenous Peoples) names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_indigenous_peoples
I have some Native American heritage. I have some Bohemian-Hungarian heritage, too. The pejorative for the latter is Bohunk.
Suppose a team chose to be the Fighting Bohunks. I may well take pride in recognition of my heritage as being feared fighters. Some others of similar heritage may take offense. Of course, calling me a Bohunk with a sneer is fighting words. But respectful use — and isn’t the implication of being tough respectful when used as a team name — is okay, isn’t it?
PC gone too far. What idiot wrote that law? How can it get re-legislated? Can another jurisdiction intervene?
Paul, if I call my wife ‘sweetie pie honey baby’ that doesn’t give you the right to call her sweetie pie honey baby. Your logic is flawed and your assumptions are civility strained.
Banksters is pejorative and meant to be so, but it’s not racially motivated as is the D.C. football team name.
Lloyd – what you call your wife is between you and her. However, “bankster’ is offensive and non-PC. It MUST go.
I’ll only agree to support changing the Redskin name if a certified and constantly updated lost of offensive and non offensive words is published by the appropriate government agency. Let’s create the Department of Non Offensive Behavior.
Or we could just realize that there will be things in this world that are offensive to some people, grow up, and learn to ignore what we don’t like or find personally offensive.
BTW, The MNF game was probably the best so far this year.
I think the NFL is in charge of approval of team names.
While I’m not a fan of CK on the whole, I think this comment of his states my opinion:
Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, too, has weighed in on the connection between redskin’s power to offend and its origins when he compared it to the derogatory verb gyp:
‘When I was growing up, I thought ‘gyp’ was simply a synonym for ‘cheat,’ and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.’
And The Atlantic has a nice twist:
All modern dictionaries label it as offensive or disparaging, just at they do the N-word—no journalist would begin a story, “Redskin astronaut John Herrington was honored last night…”
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/
It’s derogatory at best and in the worst case racist..It’s time for the Washington football team to grow up.
Lloyd – if a group calls itself by that name, then I get to call them by that name. I am egalitarian. So if blacks run around calling each other n**ger, then I do to. If Indians call themselves Redskins, who am I to not use the term?
Personally, I find ‘bankster’ to be a pejorative and I think you should be forced to take it off and apologize to bankers everywhere for your egregious use of the term.
BTW, Go Fighting Sioux!!!
Okay, enough is enough. I am going after “The Fighting Irish.” It is a racist stereotype and needs to be changed. And I think the NAACP should change their name. “Colored People” is surely racist.
BTW, you do not want to screw with the Navajo Nation. They have a ton of money and they are litigious. I am sure they have more money than the NFL. Just ask the Hopi.
What American Indians choose to call their teams as to what whites choose is like comparing apples and oranges, excuse the apples (some will understand). Indians amongst themselves often refer to themselves as “skins” and the reservation as “the res”. I wouldn’t advise whites call an Indian a “skin”. The name needs to change as does the racist attitude of the ownership and the fans. USMC Vietnam Vet, Wounded Knee II Vet.